If this is true, it very well could be bad for D&D. Marvel and Lucasfilm's main IPs have plenty of following to turn out profit to please disney. WotC does as well, but D&D may not be one of them. I know for a fact (have done extensive financial research and reports on disney's practices) that Disney is very cuthroat when it comes to production. You produce, or you don't. If you don't, you get shelved.

... But at the same time, it would be preeeeetty unsurprising. Hasbro is one company that stands to gain a lot from the Lucasfilm purchase, and new SW films - they hold the merchandise rights apparently all the way through 2020.

If Disney decided that it was going to be THE company profiting from SW, that would be the way to do it.

(All of my monies if that meant a revival of Star Wars Miniatures in time for new films. ALL OF IT. EVEN THE MONIES I DON'T HAVE.)

Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)

Not really. Maybe a D&D animated movie with a heart-warming story in which one of the favored protagonists dies and the others rise above their sorrows (with the help of songs by noted celebrity singer/songwriters) to save the day. Much like Dumbo. Or Bambi. Or Finding Nemo. Or Lion King.

Maybe a Disney-based Magic: the Gathering expansion akin to Kingdom Hearts. I could dig that.

That looks like the source of it, though it's being talked about elsewhere. Whether it's credible or not is certainly debatable, but the move makes sense: Hasbro has pre-existing toy licenses for both Marvel and Star Wars IPs, so from a synergy standpoint the merger makes perfect sense.

Not really. Maybe a D&D animated movie with a heart-warming story in which one of the favored protagonists dies and the others rise above their sorrows (with the help of songs by noted celebrity singer/songwriters) to save the day.

As long as they don't make the villain(s) like most Disney villains and make them Evilson PuppyKicker McVillageBurner levels of evil.

I don't really see a way that this could be a bad thing. For one thing, getting Disney's legal arm on WotC's side could prove very interesting. I am more worried about what this means for Transformers, GI Joe, and My Little Pony. D&D ranks pretty low.

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start RulesA "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.Player's Handbook(Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.Dungeon Master's Guide(Softcover, 125 pages)Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Introductory Adventure(Keep on the Borderlands)An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes:

Character SheetsReference SheetsSet of Dice

ExpertSet

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?See below.

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.

Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.

If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.

Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or moreWounded: 0 hp or lessIncapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

WoundedWhen the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

IncapacitatedCharacters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

DeadCharacters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

If true, I see no real downside. As much as people joke, Disney has taken a fairly hands off approach to the licenses they have acquired. No sign of Mickey Mouse in the Avengers, for example. Pixar has been allowed to run autonomously. And lucasfilm remains in creative control over the IP.

Ultimately, these acquisitions come down to money, marketing, and media "reach". Disney doesn't want to Disney-fy their new properties. They just want the money those properties have been making by doing their own thing. Disney isn't dumb. They're buying these properties because they are working well right now. Disney is not going to be rocking any boats.

D&D can only stand to benefit from Disney's incredibly strong market presence.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.

I am more worried about what this means for Transformers, GI Joe, and My Little Pony.

Do those things make money? I have little concern for them. Disney seems to be diversifying its holdings more than anything else, and then just kind of leaving things alone if they "work". I guess I would worry about GI Joe (if I cared about GI Joe).

On the WotC side of things, I would hope - hope - that Disney would leverage "a company that makes RPGs" to make RPGs for their properties. By which I mean, I would hope WotC would get the SW licenses back, and continue the awesome work they were doing with them.

Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)

If true, I see no real downside. As much as people joke, Disney has taken a fairly hands off approach to the licenses they have acquired. No sign of Mickey Mouse in the Avengers, for example. Pixar has been allowed to run autonomously. And lucasfilm remains in creative control over the IP.

The article I read said he was kept on as a creative consultant. That doesn't mean control. Has there been another article that says that he retains control?

If true, I see no real downside. As much as people joke, Disney has taken a fairly hands off approach to the licenses they have acquired. No sign of Mickey Mouse in the Avengers, for example. Pixar has been allowed to run autonomously. And lucasfilm remains in creative control over the IP.

The article I read said he was kept on as a creative consultant. That doesn't mean control. Has there been another article that says that he retains control?

It means it appeases fans that might be upset with Lucas being out completely. Control has been handed down to another lady...I don't recall her name.

They'll probably make the same mistake Hasbro made and put a $50 million dollar sales goal on a $35 million dollar product. Hopefully they'll change out the management though. That would be a plus on the D&D side...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

With the recent buying of starwars I could easily see hasbro being bought. I however see WotC possibly becoming a seperate entity before that happens. IF not, I"m sure we could arrange that. (Just start some rumors about D&D to where Disney doesn't want it and let another company buy it before the deal goes through.

I am more worried about what this means for Transformers, GI Joe, and My Little Pony.

Do those things make money? I have little concern for them.

Well, Transformers has had three billion dollar movies made, I guess that counts for something. And each of these brands probably makes more than the entire hobby of table top rpgs. What is your point? I do wonder how long the Disney legal team would allow Pathfinder to exist before they figured out some way to tear it down. Remember, these are the people that filed suit and won against the makers of Kimba the White Lion for copyright infringement on the Lion King, despite KtWL being made before the Lion King.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."